|Posted by Doug Jeffreys on June 14, 2014 at 12:50 AM||comments (0)|
Once again Jim Scofield, the Tribune-Democrat’s resident liberal coward, is vomiting his unverified fallacies. I will expose his lies and make plain his leftist agenda. As usual, his skewed words will be in Italics and my response will be in bold type. My references will appear at the end of the article.
June 13, 2014
Mass Incarcerations and Racial Profiling
BY JIM SCOFIELD email@example.com
JOHNSTOWN — TheUnited States has the highest imprisonment rate in the world, surpassing that of repressive countries like Russia and China.
That would be due to the fact that repressive governments like Russia and China simply execute criminals outright or imprison them and don’t keep records of it. Also, these repressive regimes that you are so quick to champion would execute you for speaking your opinion were you doing it in their country.
Ours is more than seven times the rate of Europe or Canada. With 5 percent of the world’s population, we have 25 percent of its prisoners. Hardly a mark for a democracy to be proud of.
I agree. If we executed dangerous felons and shipped other convicts back to their country of origin, our incarceration rate would be much lower.
In the 25 years since the Reagan administration’s Anti-Drug Abuse Act (1986), the U.S. penal population has risen from about 300,000 to more than 2 million. There were 41,000 drug offenders in 1985, but that has increased to 500,000 by 2010 (Wiki-pedia). Drug offenses account for half of this drastic rise in imprisonment.
Of course you conveniently omit such facts as the population growing by 71.43 million and the development of numerous new and inexpensive illegal drugs during this same time period.
As Michelle Alexander reports in her well-researched (debatable) and heavily praised book (praised only by liberal racists), “The New Jim Crow,” the drug war is mostly a war on African-Americans, particularly young black men, even though it is not explicitly conceived as such.
“Although the majority of illegal drug users and dealers are white, three-fourths of all people imprisoned for drug offenses have been black or Latino,” she wrote.
Human Rights Watch reported that in seven states, African-Americans were 80 percent to 90 percent of imprisoned drug offenders, and in 15 states, they were imprisoned for drug offenses at rates up to 57 times that of white men.
Also, white youths were actually the most likely to be guilty of drug possession and sales.
The drug war could have been justifiably waged in white suburbs or on college campuses, where both using and selling are at least as large. But these groups have too much influence to allow their lives to be so upset and their being turned into felons.
The Washington Post reported the number of black inmates in state prisons for drug offenses had fallen from 145,000 in 1999 to 113,500 in 2005, a 22 percent decline. In that period, the number of white drug offenders rose steadily, from about 50,000 to more than 72,000, a 43 percent increase. Notice that happened during G.W. Bush's term in the oval office. Those darn republicans, fixing the wrongs perpetuated by the democrats.
As Alexander notes,“African-Americans – particularly in the poorest neighborhoods – are subjected to tactics and practices that would result in public outrage and scandal if committed in middle-class white neighborhoods.”
Wrong again. During every mass shooting, everybody was treated as a potential suspect. Being ordered from the premises with empty hands raised and being frisked before being separated and interrogated, yet nobody whined about civil rights violations as they knew it was necessary for police to first control the environment before they could deem it safe. Also, during the hunt for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, authorities essentially declared martial law in the neighborhood where the search was ongoing. Again a necessary tactic.
But ghetto arrests help police keep up their numbers.
The Fourth Amendment is supposed to guarantee Americans “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches” except on “probable cause” of a carefully designed warrant. However, today, police and the Drug Enforcement Agency routinely violate this protection.
In New York, in the more segregated areas, police, in recent years, have stopped hundreds of thousands of people on the vague claim that they might have drugs or a gun, up to 85 percent of them African-Americans, rarely finding a gun or drugs.
As the facts show, it was actually quite effective. Since the end of 'Stop-and-Frisk' shootings in some of the city’s most dangerous neighborhoods are up, tripling in one Brooklyn precinct and doubling in another as well as one in the Bronx, NYPD figures show. Liberals just hate it when those pesky facts get in the way of their hysterical screeching.
When they see the police, young black men routinely raise their hands and shirt to be searched. This also happens in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and other American cities.
The DEA teaches local police to use minor traffic violations (ones that we all make!) as pretexts to search cars, especially those “driving while black,” and to intimidate drivers into allowing searches. Most people may not know that officers need “probable cause” for a search (in this day and age, if you don't know your rights, you deserve to be violated), and with a well-armed officer standing over you, it’s hard to have rights. At least 95 percent of traffic stops yield no drugs.
The crack-cocaine hysteria of the 1980s and the Reagan and George H.W. Bush tactics created an image of the black, violent criminal (the Willy Horton campaign ad). Most drug offenses are nonviolent; four out of five arrests are for possession – though possession can result in five-year-plus sentences.
Reagan and George H.W. Bush did not create the image of black, violent criminals. That image was created by the very real black, violent criminals, in much the same way that the image of Italian mobsters is not a creation of Hollywood but an accurate portrayal of the Mafia, which originated in, and is even now based in Italy and present in every country.
Violent crime is not responsible for our mass incarceration. Drugs are. Drugs don’t make users violent. Their illegality, though, causes addicts, desperate to get drug money, to steal, and it causes violence between dealers.
Again, you are dead wrong. Most illegal drugs do, in fact, make the user violent by altering their perception of reality and lowering inhibitions. Sadly, I find it easy to believe that you are comfortable blaming our laws for the easily documented violent actions of drug addicts and dealers. That is no different than blaming our laws forbidding murder for the incarceration of the inmates on death row.
The drug war has been useful to some politicians as a covert racist appeal to working-class whites by politicians who have little to offer them otherwise (the “Southernstrategy”).
We have made remarkable progress racially. Our chief law enforcement official, the attorney general, and our president are black. But when African-Americans become the main target of drug laws, when they are more often arrested, convicted and given longer sentences than whites, there does exist prima facie evidence of prejudice, however unconscious or unnoticed.
Remarkable progress indeed. An African-American president and attorney general that have consistently ignored the Constitution and committed more civil rights violations than any previous administration. Surely something the liberals can be proud of.
Our draconian drug laws ensure not only extreme prison sentences, but that, once released from prison, offenders won’t get jobs, housing and education support, or even be allowed to vote. They are tagged for the rest of their lives.
Oddly enough I agree with you on this, to a point. Our drug laws are draconian and antiquated and surely need to be updated to reflect more contemporary scientific discoveries and social norms.
And inner-city communities suffer further economic and emotional devastation.
Too many of our black men, particularly, have disappeared to prisons, and chances are bleak that they’ll straighten out after prison. Most of us have done illegal things, some very dangerous – speeding, drinking and driving, for example. Can’t we identify with their mistakes?
Yes, let’s blame inanimate objects like drugs and guns instead of the stupid decisions of criminals. You are correct on one point. Chances are slim to none that these criminals will straighten out, so let’s eliminate them from society (I prefer the economical use of a bullet). Trying to lessen the severity of their crimes by comparing driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 with such crimes as aggravated assault, armed robbery and murder is pathetic and a desperate attempt to legitimize your illogical argument.
Distributors of alcohol and beer are no longer considered criminals since the end of Probation,which itself had created a criminal class. Yet they promote a substance that causes some Americans terrible addictive problems and disrupts families. It’s estimated that 20 percent of drinkers consume 80 percent of the alcoholic beverages. Most of us drink enjoyably, without causing much trouble.
True. Alcoholismcan cause some social and legal problems but I can’t remember the last time an alcoholic ate someone’s face.
Why are we imprisoning huge numbers of Americans for consuming and selling similar substances? At worst, drugs are a medical, not a criminal, problem.
Stop skirting the real reason you wrote this. You want to be able to smoke pot legally. Guess what? I agree with you. I believe marijuana should be available for both medical and recreational use. That being said, pot simply cannot be lumped together with all drugs as you are trying to do. LSD, Crack, Crank, Angel Dust, Cocaine, Heroin, Speed, Morphine, Oxycodone, etc., are far too dangerous to ever be legalized. Of course, if you hadn’t fried your tiny brain on numerous combinations of these mind-altering substances, you might be able to put forth a more cogent argument.
|Posted by Doug Jeffreys on May 31, 2014 at 3:05 PM||comments (0)|
Libtard Scott Martelle clearly has no idea how things work in the real world so I will set him straight. His words appear in italics, my rebuttal appears in bold. My sources are listed at the end.
You say gun control doesn't work? Fine. Let's ban guns altogether.
by Scott Martelle
Twitter post - If controlling gun ownership hasn't worked, then let's ban them
Twitter post - This is about more than Isla Vista: We need to fix the violence within us, beginning with banning guns
In a post Tuesday,I listed the mass shootings since January 2013 in which at least three people were killed. It’s an agonizingly, depressingly long list, and I cited it as the prime reason we need meaningful gun control. The post received the usual blowback from gun owners, most of whom skipped over the scope of gun deaths in this country to look more myopically at last week’s tragic events at Isla Vista (which I mentioned only in passing, seeing this problem as much broader than the most recent headlines).
First, there is no such thing as ‘meaningful gun control’. This is an oxymoron invented by liberals. Second, gun owners were neither ignoring nor being myopic concerning shootings in the United States. They were simply responding to the current liberal panic Du Jour.
But there also have been responses from people who share my disgust at the endless gun violence that pervades American culture. A few asked what should be done. My personal preference? It’s a decidedly minority viewpoint, but I say, ban them, with a carve-out for hunting weapons.
For example:Hunters could own shotguns (and rifles where state laws allow them for hunting), but they would have to be registered and the owners would have to pass a gun safety course before they could get a hunting license (already a requirement in most, if not all, places). That license would be a prerequisite for registering a hunting weapon. Resale of a weapon should be monitored to preclude passing it along to unqualified people. Ammunition sales would be tracked much like we do sales of pseudoephinedrine (an ingredient in meth).
‘Registered’, another word meaning “Preparation for total confiscation”, just ask the citizens of Chicago, New York, Washington D.C., etc., who, by the way, have seen a significant rise in criminal activity every time the powers that be have restricted or outlawed firearms. As for tracking ammunition sales in the same way as is done with pseudoephinedrine, that would be as effective on stopping mass shootings as controlling pseudoephinedrine has been on stopping illegal drugs.
As for handguns,assault-style weapons, etc., let’s have a flat-out ban. Beyond the histrionics of the gun lobby, there is no defensible reason for such weapons to be a part of our culture. They exist for one purpose: to kill. Yes, hobbyists also like to use guns for target shooting and other nonlethal purposes, but it’s hard to say that desire for sport outweighs the atrocious level of gun-related deaths in this country.
No defensible reason for such weapons to be part of our culture? I find this level of ignorance to be stunning. Take a look at the Second Amendment. It has NOTHING to do with hunting. It is about a citizen’s right to defend themselves against all enemies, both foreign (invading armies) and domestic (common criminals as well as tyrants).
Self-defense? Impossible to measure because of a lack of trustworthy data. Apparently you are one of the few people on the planet that don’t consider the CATO Institute or the CDC trustworthy. Similarly, the scope of gun victims is unknown, in part because of gun-lobby interference in efforts to try to establish baseline reports (we know how many die but not how many are wounded). The gun-lobby has nothing to do with any lack of baseline reports. This is due to HIPAA compliance rules. This national debate would be helped immensely if the Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were funded by Congress to collect the data. As you can see above, they did. Try doing a little research sometime.
But we do know that guns are often used by angry men to kill their wives and kids; the mentally ill to act out whatever pain they are suffering; violent criminals; You are 3.61 times more likely to be assaulted with cutting instruments, bludgeons, vehicles, hands, fists, feet, etc., as opposed to firearms; the suicidal (who may kill themselves anyway by other means, but ready access to a gun makes it easier); or children who find guns kept by “properly trained” owners and accidentally shoot themselves or others. In fact, two-thirds of homicides in the U.S. involve guns, according to the CDC. And yes, we need to have stronger, better programs and laws to help the mentally ill, but in the end, it’s their access to weapons that have caused so much mayhem at such a big scale. Mental illness is a factor in some of the violence, but guns are part of most of the killings. Also, nearly every mass shooting has occurred in a gun-free zone. Clearly the lack of guns in the hands of responsible citizens is also a factor, as has been proven consistently.
As for the argument that the 2nd Amendment was written with an eye toward protecting America from the tyranny of King George, the Revolutionary War ended in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris. The Bill of Rights was adopted six years later in an atmosphere in which there was no standing federal army; the government relied on state militias, which were composed of soldiers who brought their own weapons with them. We haven’t had an army like that in a long, long time. And the idea that a few well-armed patriots would be able to defeat the U.S. Army should the government turn despotic is, at best, a romantic infatuation. When the 2nd Amendment was written, private citizens owned Kentucky Long rifles, the Brown Bess, and the Charleville (all on the cutting-edge of military infantry firepower) as well as cannons and howitzers. So clearly the founding fathers intended the citizens to be as well armed as the military so they could defend themselves against anyone that would try to restrict their freedoms, you know, as they had just finished fighting a lengthy war for just that reason. As far as your brainless assertion that “a few well-armed patriots” holding off the U.S. Army is a romantic infatuation, is one of the stupidest things to come from your pen. Tell that to the poorly equipped Afghanistan rebels that successfully defeated the much better armed British army and the Soviet Union. How about the Viet Cong, who fought the entire United States Military to a standstill? The fact is, throughout all of human existence, it has been proven time and again that only about 3% of the population is needed to bring any government to its knees.
Yes, the Supreme Court has upheld private gun ownership under the 2nd Amendment, but the Supreme Court has been wrong before (Fugitive Slave Law, the Dred Scott case, decisions allowing deed restrictions to bar home sales to African Americans, etc.). One can hope that the court will someday go further than its recognition that the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute right and determine that rampant gun ownership is a public safety threat. But it is an absolute right! That is why the first ten amendments are called “The Bill of Rights” you dolt! And that Congress will push legislation that recognizes that the heavy societal costs of gun ownership out weigh any 2ndAmendment pretense to the right to own guns. (By comparison, the 1st Amendment,near and dear to my heart, is not absolute: We have libel laws, which inherently limit free speech for the sake of the broader good, yet even journalists recognize them as a reasonable compromise.) By comparison, there are thousands of gun laws to limit guns to legal uses such as hunting, target competitions and self-defense, for the broader good, yet criminals (by the very definition of the word) don’t obey them, in much the same way as your wonderful libel laws don’t stop dishonest or unscrupulous people from presenting undocumented facts or outright lying.
So my personal view: Ban the guns, and slowly but inexorably bring our culture back from this violent, communal madness. It won’t be fast, it won’t be easy, it probably won’t even be possible given the political realities. But the status quo is unacceptable and, at one level, suicidal. We have to try to fix this.
“Ban the guns, and slowly but inexorably bring our culture back from this violent, communal madness.” Yes, I’m sure this will bring on a peaceful utopia, just as it did when Adolf Hitler banned guns. Or when Joseph Stalin banned them. How about Chairman Mao? Yeah, gun bans worked out real well for those citizens.
|Posted by Doug Jeffreys on January 4, 2014 at 11:00 AM||comments (0)|
The blog from Radical Wind (who calls herself a radical feminist) posted the insane rantings below. My responses are in bold and underlined type.
PIV is always rape, ok?
Published December 15,
Just to recall a basic fact: Intercourse/PIV is always rape, plain and simple.
This is not a fact. It is an insane, unfounded, uninformed opinion.
This is a developed recap from what I’ve been saying in various comments here and there in the last two years or so. As a radfem I’ve always said PIV is rape and I remember being disappointed to discover that so few radical feminists stated it clearly. How can you possibly see it otherwise? Intercourse is the very means through which men oppress us, from which we are not allowed to escape, yet some instances of or PIV and intercourse may be chosen and free? That makes no sense at all.
So called PIV is not rape. It is, in fact, the way we propagate the species. That you can view this in any other way illustrates how insane you are.
First, well intercourse is NEVER sex for women. Only men experience rape as sexual and define it as such. Sex for men is the unilateral penetration of their penis into a woman (or anything else replacing and symbolising the female orifice) whether she thinks she wants it or not – which is the definition of rape: that he will to do it anyway and that he uses her and treats her as a receptacle, in all circumstances – it makes no difference to him experiencing it as sexual. That is, at the very least, men use women as useful objects and instruments for penetration, and women are dehumanised by this act. It is an act of violence.
There are certainly violent men that force themselves on women (and sometimes other men), but clearly 99.99% of heterosexual congress is consensual and does not fall under even the most loosely defined description of rape.
As FCM pointed out some time ago, intercourse is inherently harmful to women and intentionally so, because it causes pregnancy in women. Yes, this is called procreation you dolt. The purpose of men enforcing intercourse regularly (as in, more than once a month) onto women is because it’s the surest way to cause pregnancy and force childbearing against our will, and thereby gain control over our reproductive powers. Wrong. It is an expression of love and/or it is for the mutual enjoyment of the men and women involved. There is no way to eliminate the pregnancy risk entirely off PIV and the mitigating and harm-reduction practices such as contraception and abortion are inherently harmful, too. Wrong again. Reproductive harms of PIV range from pregnancy to abortion, having to take invasive, or toxic contraception, giving birth, forced child bearing and rearing and all the complications that go with them which may lead up to severe physical and emotional damage, disability, destitution, illness, or death (See factcheckme.wordpress.com for her work on the reproductive harms of PIV, click on the “intercourse series” page or “PIV” in the search bar). If we compare this to even the crappiest online definition of violence: “behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something”. Bingo. It fits: Pregnancy = may hurt, damage or kill. Intercourse = a man using his physical force to penetrate a woman. Intention / purpose of the act of intercourse = to cause pregnancy. PIV is therefore intentional harm / violence. Intentional sexual harm of a man against a woman through penile penetration = RAPE. Wow! That was such an incredible stretch of warped logic I’m surprised it didn’t rend the very fabric of space/time.
If we look at the act in more detail (skip this parag if you can’t take it), PIV is a man mounting on a woman to thrust a large member of himself into her most intimate parts, often forcing her to be entirely naked, banging himself against her with the whole weight of his body and hips, shaking her like he would stuff a corpse, then using her insides as a receptacle for his penile dejection. How is this a normal civilised, respectful way to treat anyone? Sorry for the explicit picture, but this is what it is and it’s absolutely revolting and violating. Since you use the word ‘force’ you are clearly speaking of only that 0.01% of actual rapes. If you had an intellect just slightly above a wilted eggplant you would realize that in today's enlightened society modern women actually initiate sexual activity with men at least half the time.
The term “fuck you” is not an insult for nothing, men know why – it’s the worst thing you can do to a human being. Nope. The worst thing is listening to you articulate what passes in your empty skull as thought. It is in itself an extremely physically invasive act, very often painful, generally at the beginning before the pain may be cut off by the genital arousal; causes all sorts of tears, bruises, swelling, discomfort, STDs, vaginal infections, urinary infections, genital warts, HIV and death. Not to forget the additional sado-gynecological interventions/ costs of PIV-maintenance, and all the secondary physical mutiliation and financial costs that go with our duty to make ourselves look decorative for male sexual consumption – such as hair removal, make-up, starvation or forced feeding, torturous limb deforming or cutting up, etc. What world are you from?
The fact intercourse causes so many infections and tears and warts attests to the unnaturalness of intercourse, that it’s not meant to be. The vagina’s primary function isn’t to be penetrated by a penis but to eject a baby for birth. They are two muscle tissues / sphincters pressed against each other to help the baby be pushed out. Penetration of the penis into the vagina is completely unnecessary for conception. Ah, there’s part of the problem. You’re too stupid to understand that penile penetration is in fact how conception is enacted.
There’s a reason men need to groom us into it, and why this grooming takes so long- because it’s so grossly violating and traumatising that we would otherwise never submit to intercourse. Yet millions of women do gladly and wilfully engage in sexual activity of all sorts with men every week. The only reason we may now not feel raped or have the impression we desired or initiated PIV, is because men broke down our barriers very skilfully and progressively from birth, breaking down our natural defences to pain and invasion, our confidence in our own perceptions and sensations of fear and disgust that tell us male sexual invasion is painful, harmful and traumatic.
Through an all-pervasive and powerful male propaganda, they stuff our minds from infancy with the idea that PIV is normal, desirable and erotic, before we can even conceive of it as something horrifying, and make sure we never see any alternative to their lie – or that if we do, we can no longer take in the information, are punished for thinking and saying otherwise. The fact we may not immediately feel raped doesn’t mean it’s not rape, objectively speaking. To give a classic example, many women in prostitution may not identify the act of prostitution as rape, except if the act wasn’t paid for. It doesn’t stop us from saying that all prostitution is rape. We know that our subjective feelings or thoughts may be colonised by men’s perspectives and as radical feminists we don’t let that override and erase the objective reality of violence. (PS -The reason why ONLY the lack of payment is defined as rape is because the offence here isn’t against the prostituted woman but the pimp who was deprived of his income. Rape comes from rapt, which is an old word for theft of woman-as-property.) Actually, we only do that to the insane ones, like you. And how did you find out about the weekly meetings that all the men in the world attend to discuss the further subjugation of women?
Lastly, from a structural point of view, as a class oppressed by men, we are not in any position of freedom to negotiate what men do to us collectively and individually within the heterocage. Men, by whom we are possessed, colonised and held captive, are the sole agents and organisers of PIV. Men dominate us precisely so we can’t opt out of sexual abuse by them; intercourse is the very means through which men subordinate us, the very purpose of their domination, to control human reproduction. How did you break the mind-washing? Yes, you’ve figured it out, women have been, are now and always will be nothing but second-class citizens at best, and you can’t stop us. Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
|Posted by Doug Jeffreys on July 9, 2013 at 4:05 PM||comments (0)|
This was originally one of those religious posts by a Facebook friend. I modified it so that it would be more realistic. (Modifications are in bold and italics).
Human: God, can I ask you a question?
Human: Promise you won't get mad
God: I promise
Human: Why did you let so much stuff happen to Human today?
God: What do you mean?
Human: Well, I woke up late
Human: My car took forever to start
Human: at lunch they made my sandwich wrong & I had to wait
Human: On the way home, my phone went DEAD, just as I picked up a call
God: All right
Human: And on top of it all off, when I got home ~I just want to soak my feet in my new foot massager & relax. BUT it wouldn't work!!! Nothing went right today! Why did you do that?
FIRST: HOW THE THEOLOGISTS WOULD LIKE IT TO BE
God: Let me see, the death angel was at your bed this morning & I had to send one of My Angels to battle him for your life. I let you sleep through that
Me (humbled): OH
GOD: I didn't let your car start because there was a drunk driver on your route that would have hit you if you were on the road.
God: The first person who made your sandwich today was sick & I didn't want you to catch what they have, I knew you couldn't afford to miss work.
God: Your phone went dead because the person that was calling was going to give false witness about what you said on that call, I didn't even let you talk to them so you would be covered.
Me (softly): I see God
God: Oh and that foot massager, it had a shortage that was going to throw out all of the power in your house tonight. I didn't think you wanted to be in the dark.
Me: I'm Sorry God
God: Don't be sorry, just learn to Trust Me.... in All things , the Good & the bad.
Me: I will trust You.
God: And don't doubt that My plan for your day is Always Better than your plan.
Me: I won't God. And let me just tell you God, Thank You for Everything today.
God: You're welcome child. It was just another day being your God and I Love looking after My Children...
NOW: HOW IT REALLY IS
God: Let me see, the death angel was at your bed this morning & I had to send one of My Angels to battle him for your life. I let you sleep through that
Human: Oh. I thought all the angels took their orders from you.
GOD: Well, I, I, . . . let’s move on. I didn't let your car start because there was a drunk driver on your route that would have hit you if you were on the road.
Human: So you allowed a man to not only get drunk, but operate a vehicle.
God: Look, it really isn’t, just forget that and move to point three. The first person who made your sandwich today was sick & I didn't want you to catch what they have, I knew you couldn't afford to miss work.
Human: Ah, so the cafeteria worker couldn’t afford to miss work either so you let them go to work knowing they could infect dozens of other people.
God: You know it’s really not that simple, let’s talk about the phone. Your phone went dead because the person that was calling was going to give false witness about what you said on that call, I didn't even let you talk to them so you would be covered.
Human (softly): I see God, so there is someone out there with a vendetta against me that will now plot something even more damaging.
God: You do really not understand any of this. Oh and that foot massager, it had a shortage that was going to throw out all of the power in your house tonight. I didn't think you wanted to be in the dark.
Human: Actually I don’t mind the dark and I use that massager fairly often and would have found out about the ‘short’ anyway, and it would have been a simple matter to flip the breaker, turning the lights back on.
God: Don't be obstreperous, just learn to Trust me.... in all things, the Good & the bad.
Human: Sure I will.
God: And don't doubt that my plan for your day is Always Better than your plan.
Human: Oh yeah, you always have a plan.
Nurse: Doctor, he’s been sitting in the corner talking to himself again.
Doctor: Let’s increase his Thorazine, nurse. What a shame, no loving god would ever inflict his creations with schizophrenia.
|Posted by Doug Jeffreys on May 13, 2013 at 9:40 AM||comments (0)|
The letter of 05/08/13 "Delusion is gripping gun-rights zealots" was so far off, Nat Boscola should have been embarrassed to sign it. Since the Tribune-Democrat feels the need to not only limit any letter to 250 words, they also further edited my response to the gutless Nat Boscola in the name of “political Correctness”. Therefore I will post my rebuttal in its entirety, point by point. My responses appear under-lined and in bold type.
"Delusion is gripping gun-rights zealots"
Please stop with the paranoia – no one is trying to take your guns away.
Really? Every government that has wanted to ban guns has started with registration (including Great Britain). Allow me to provide the following quotes from Democrat politicians & pundits;
"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Diane Feinstein
"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
- Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)
“Confiscation could be an option…mandatory sale to the state could be an option.”
When they changed laws pertaining to cigarettes, I never heard anyone say that government is trying to take their cigarettes away. When liquor laws were changed, no one ever said they were trying to take away their liquor.
Every month some state or federal body adds a new tax to tobacco so that eventually nobody can afford to smoke.
No one took away liquor? Ever heard of the 18th Amendment?
Millions of people are in favor of changing just a few gun laws that will make this country a safer place to live – safer for children and adults.
There are over 2,000 state and federal laws on the books governing the possession, sale and use of firearms in the United States. The city of Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country and one of the highest violent crime rates (including murder), but you think “changing just a few gun laws” will suddenly make the criminals see the light.
When Richard Nixon was in office, he was asked how he felt about guns. His reply was he thought guns were an abomination. That’s exactly how I feel.
So you admit that you are no different than a gutless, egotistical tyrant.
This may come as a surprise, but the majority of people in the United States don’t own guns.
This may come as a surprise to you; since most gun owners know that the government can’t be trusted they don’t tell the pollsters that they have them. The number is actually closer to 50%.
Ninety percent of people support background checks and the bill still didn’t pass. Less than 50 people were killed by guns in Australia last year, the same amount were killed in England last year. More than 12,000 people were killed by guns in the U.S. last year. How can anybody find that acceptable? We’re better than that.
If 90% of the population really wanted more background checks we would have them.
Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime and all other violent crimes rose dramatically. According to the F.B.I. Uniform Crime Report, Year 1992 had an over-all violent crime rate 757.7 and a murder rate of 9.3 (all rates per 100,000). Year 2011 saw an over-all violent crime rate of 386.3 and a murder rate of 4.7 a reduction of 50% in twenty years while the number of guns grew. A comparison to the liberal promised land of Great Britain is difficult to make as they have a much different definition of "violent crime" which makes them appear to have a higher rate some five times greater than the U.S. But even when you make an educated adjustment the British violent crime rate is still double that of the United States. The fact remains; no matter if you're in the U.S., Australia or Great Britain, you are far more likely to be beat to death with fists or a bludgeon.
To change the subject, no matter how many President Obama-bashing letters appear in this forum, the fact remains that Obama will still be in the White House for 3 1⁄2 more years and Mitt Romney will still be the Republican challenger who lost by a landslide.
Once again you show your ignorance of the facts. Obama won the election by 3.5%. Hardly a landslide and as more facts of voter fraud come to light that tiny margin will continue to shrink. Next time your fear prompts you to spew your hatred and bigotry at least check your facts. Clearly Nat (and it doesn’t surprise me that your name is a homophone of gnat, the irritating, worthless pest) you would be better off to move to England. They are much closer to your liberal, socialist ideal.
|Posted by Doug Jeffreys on June 23, 2012 at 7:20 PM||comments (0)|
I know that nobody likes to be proved wrong, but anybody that voted for B.O. and still thinks it was the right choice is simply delusional. Barak Obama is the most disgusting scumbag to ever enter politics, and that’s saying something. He’s a sociopath and a pathological liar. One thing this dolt seems to forget is every lie he speaks is immediately filmed and saved to hundreds of thousands of sites on the internet where they can be used to illustrate his hypocrisy and evil. Below are several samples of B.O. caught in blatant lies and scheming to destroy the republic.
|Posted by Doug Jeffreys on February 12, 2012 at 1:40 PM||comments (0)|
Recently, a video http://www.litefm.com/pages/news-story.html?feed=421220&article=9738000, of a father dispensing justice to his spoiled daughter has gone viral on Facebook, YouTube and every other part of the internet. I found myself actually forced to defend this man’s actions on my friend’s Facebook page. My friend agreed with the dad in question, however some of his friends did not. I found this stunning as I thought dad was the model of restraint in this particular instance. I will list some of the negative posts below, (using only first names to protect the ill-informed) and then give my response.
“All learned behavior.”
“And her parents ...they need to sit down and talk with some ground rules.”
“I am not saying what the dad did is right, but it was a knee jerk reaction. Most men find it hard to see a teachable moment when they feel sucker punched by their own children. This was the second time it happened. Obviously he didn't emote his hurt the first time.”
“Parents are "supposed" to be the adults. By going public, just like his child did, this father is doing nothing to repair the relationship.”
“The dad just seems like a cocky jerk. Show some class. He looked like more of a fool than his daughter.”
The behavior displayed by the daughter is learned from equally spoiled peers not from such responsible parents. As the dad states in the video the “ground rules” had been laid out on more than one occasion in the past. This was not a knee jerk reaction. Obviously dad had taken a day to think about his daughter’s disrespectful post and mull over the previous incident, the punishment (grounding & loss of privileges) and the failure of said punishment. “Emote his hurt”? Are you kidding? It is that kind of namby-pamby, politically-correct nonsense that has bred an entire generation of The-world-owes-me-everything brats. This was not the first incident. Dad tried a less firm type of discipline which was made clear to the daughter and mom. Obviously it did not take. When criminals sneer at ‘community service’ the next logical step is to up the ante and toss their sorry butt in jail. By "going public" The father took the punishment to a venue his daughter would understand. That is, in fact, good parenting and it is not his job to be his daughter's friend. He did act as an adult in trying to teach his daughter a valuable lesson. And really Bretta, a cocky jerk? This man showed more class, restraint and common sense than I’ve seen in a long time. If this doesn't get through to the ungrateful brat, he should sell her to some Saudi goat herder. I never beat my kids. Nor did I ever feel compelled to shoot any of their possessions. I simply made clear to them (once they were at an age to reason) that they were responsible for their actions. Some hard lessons were learned along the way, and I have a very good relationship with my children and received many compliments on their excellent behavior over the years. Dad did the right thing. Kudos to him.
|Posted by Doug Jeffreys on February 3, 2012 at 11:35 PM||comments (0)|
I thought this would be an easy answer but I had to really think about it. I suppose it started when I was about twelve. I would draw may own Super Heroes and of course, once drawn, I needed stories for them, so I started making my own comic books. The art was lame. The writing, even worse. The tales of Archie, Veronica and friends were stories of Shakespearean complexity compared to my pathetic scribbling. Quite frankly I was far more interested in drawing at that time. Thus my scripts were of the most rudimentary sort; Hero sees criminals involved in felonious activity, hero beats up criminals, hero flies off into the sunset.
It wasn’t until my junior year of high school, in my Creative Writing class that I realized I actually enjoyed creating a written tale. I wrote a short, pulp style detective story that earned me a B+. I gave it to my friend’s girlfriend to type it for me so I could submit it to a magazine. Unfortunately for me (and fortunately for the literary world) she lost it. However, it was too late for the publishing industry, the seed had been planted. I continued to work on my comics, producing tales just slightly more complex than a classified ad for a garage sale. I was a voracious reader throughout my years in secondary school, starting of course, with the pulp serials of Robert E. Howard, Edgar Rice Burroughs, John Norman, etc. I still love the “Sword & Sorcery” genre but my tastes began to mature and I began to explore such authors as Eric Van Lustbader, Tom Clancy, Michael Crighton, Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, and other authors that put actual science into their science fiction and/or techno-thrillers.
This had two very profound effects on me. First: My selection of literary material was greatly expanded. Second: I began to look for logical reasoning and realistic science in everything I read, as well as the television shows I watched, and the movies I saw. I’m sure you can see the problem. Most shows, movies and books don’t give a rat’s patoot about such mundane matters such as logic, common sense and the laws of physics. Most writers used a very popular method to move the plot along. Something I first heard described by Roger Ebert way back when he and Gene Siskel hosted their own show (where they would critique the latest films). I don’t remember the film but I clearly recall Roger refer to “The Rule of Idiots”, i.e. if it wasn’t for the idiots, you wouldn’t have a story. I saw this rule used time and again in books, television and movies and it would drive me crazy! It’s pure laziness on the part of the writer. Either that or all the screen writers and hack authors actually are that stupid (or they think we are)!
More times than I can recall, I would put down the book or leave the theater thinking, “Even I could write a better story than that.” I found myself critiquing the science and logic of every manner of story whether it was the big screen, the small screen or the printed page. Perhaps this is why I still enjoy the old pulps. As they dealt mainly with magic and the super-natural, which is by its very definition, beyond the laws of nature. Thus you have quite a bit more leeway in plot devices.
Being a great fan of all things (zombie and/or apocalyptic) it pains me somewhat to point out that the godfather of zombie movies himself, the legendary George A. Romero, is guilty of relying heavily on the rule of idiots. I found Tom Savini’s re-make of “Night of the Living Dead” to be a vast improvement over the original. Although to give Mr. Romero his due I believe he was more concerned with the underlying political/social message of his stories as opposed to the science. It was my hatred for the near epidemic use of the “Rule of Idiots” that spurred me to write. I’ve always felt that rather than use idiots to move the plot along or provide a challenge for the protagonist, simply provide a smarter/faster/stronger monster/enemy/antagonist.
Whereas I have had the germ of an idea for this story incubating in my mind for a very long time. I have found my attempts at actually writing a better story embarrassingly slow. Who knew that turning an idea into a cognizant, well-structured tale would be so difficult? Certainly not I. I have done considerable research in a number of complex medical, technical and scientific fields as best I could with a layman’s knowledge and near zero funds and believe I have delivered a scientifically plausible story.
|Posted by Doug Jeffreys on December 11, 2011 at 3:45 PM||comments (0)|
I was going to give my 2 cents worth but with inflation it's now a quarter. I am a member of a union because the company that I work for is a closed shop which means I couldn't work for them unless I paid Union dues. In any other venue that's called extortion, but I digress. Decades ago Unions were desperately needed. Many industries took unfair advantage of laborers and the unions helped even the playing field, but like most things developed by man there is no moderation so now the pendulum has swung too far and now the unions have too much power. Unions that represent public employees have given them huge pay increases as well as incredibly luxurious benefits that are funded by my tax dollars and the main reason GMC neede bailed out was due to the outrageuos salaries and benefits of the bastard unions sucking up all the profits, most of which should have been going into research and development to improve their lousy vehicles. I was forced to join PSSU 668 which is a branch of the commie bastard SEIU. My union does exactly squat for me. I went 5 years without a raise and every year I pay more and more for my health insurance while getting less. So I have no sympathy for these whiny cry babies. I hope they are all fired and the union broken. I guarantee the void will be immediately filled by an army of unemployed workers and recent college grads.
|Posted by Doug Jeffreys on December 11, 2011 at 3:30 PM||comments (0)|
I find it a little disconcerting to read a newspaper or watch the nightly news and see the people of Occupy Wall Street and all the “spin-offs” across the country disrupting the everyday comings and goings of honest, hardworking folks like you and me.
As I watched the news the other night they displayed a map of the country with little red dots to indicate each “Occupy” demonstration. Not surprisingly, all the protests were occurring in only the largest cities along the east and west coasts with a scattering throughout the rest of the country such as Chicago, St. Louis, Denver and Houston. Again, no surprises as these are hot spots of liberalism. People that have no concept of personal responsibility or an honest days’ work. My father worked 12 hour days in a steel mill and then worked another 4-6 hours wiring houses, fixing plumbing or repairing cars to provide a safe, loving and prosperous environment for my mother my brothers, my sister and myself. My mother kept a clean house, kept us in clean clothes, cooked nutritious meals and kept us kids on track with home-work and chores. No small task with five kids.
I learned at an early age, you do for yourself. You do not rely on the government for support. That is not what governments do. The government should provide defense, an infrastructure and the freedom to be the best you can be and little else. I grew up and still live in south west Pennsylvania. Folks in this area are very much the same, just like my parents. These folks are my role-models. I’m sure you good people can relate to this as the majority of Americans share this trait of working for what you want, taking responsibility for your own lives and pulling yourselves up by your bootstraps when need be. Being a self-published author has required hard work, self confidence and personal responsibility (http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/85552). I’m not special because I’ve worked jobs I hated so I could pay my bills and provide for my family. I’m sure many of you have been in the same situation and taken whatever job presented itself at the time. You adapt to the changes and hurdles life throws at you. You overcome and you improve your life. That’s what men and women do. That’s what made this country great and that’s what will keep it great.